GURVINDER SINGH vs Punjab National Bank

-THIS is an appeal filed by Gurvinder Singh (''complainant'' before the District Forum) against the order of the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ropar (hereinafter referred to as the ''district Forum'') dated 18. 10. 2002 for enhancement of compensation.

BRIEF facts of the case are that Gurvinder Singh applied for loan of Rs. 1 lac to Respondent/o. P. No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as ''op. No. 1'') and they sanctioned loan of Rs. 65,000 for running his shop. OP No. 1 gave only Rs. 50,000 from which Rs. 2,500 was deducted as security and complainant also deposited some instalments. It was alleged that fire was broken in his shop and DDR No. 27 dated 28. 10. 2000 was lodged in this regard. Opposite parties were also informed. He also submitted relevant document and photographs of burnt shop but alleged that no compensation had been given in fact his shop was insured with O. P. No. 2 vide Policy No. 588106 dated 14. 12. 1999. It was prayed that he suffered a loss to the tune of Rs. one lac. On notice, O. P. No. 1 filed its reply and admitted the fact of loan. It was stated that O. P. No. 2 was paid Rs. 12,297 to the complainant, which was credited in his account maintained by them. It is further stated that contract of insurance was between O. P. No. 2 and complainant only. O. P. No. 2 filed its reply and stated that they paid Rs. 12,297 to the complainant as proposed by the Surveyor.

Learned District Forum has thoroughly considered the matter and allowed the complaint by observing as under: "6. Now we would like to advert to the merit of the case on facts. Ex. R12 is the Photostat of report dated 9. 2. 2001 made by Competent Surveyors Pvt. Ltd. , Surveyors and Loss Assessors submitted to the O. P. 2 in due course after due survey. We have perused the same and find that it is quite exhaustive containing each bit of details. Vide just referred report loss was assessed at Rs. 14,789. However, as record shows, O. P. 2 while settling the claim deducted an amount of Rs. 2,492 from the amount of loss as assessed by the Surveyors and Loss Assessors on the plea that complainant had not submitted bills in relation thereto. However, this cut made cannot be said to have stood the test of scrutiny even for a moment, more particularly when Surveyors and Loss Assessors while asserting the loss as above had in their mind some of the copies of bills of affected items as provided to them by the complainant. Once it is so, it cannot be said that there has been no deficiency in service on the part of O. P. 2 while settling the claim straightaway thus making out a case for compensation within the meaning of Sec. 14 (1) (d) of the Act. Likewise, there has also been deficiency in service on the part of O. P. 2 in settling the claim and that too half heartedly as late as 11. 1. 2002 on which date amount of Rs. 12,297 was paid to the complainant vide cheque No. No. 330883 dated 11. 1. 2002 drawn on Punjab National Bank, College Road, Ropar as loss had occurred as early as 28. 10. 2000 again making out a case for compensation under Section 14 (1) (d) of the Act on this score too. The surviving preliminary objection that there has been no deficiency in service, thus, is also negatived.

Question that now arises is as to what relief may be accorded to the complainant under the circumstances. After due consideration, we find it a case for direction to O. P. 2 to pay Rs. 2,492 as deducted by it from the amount of loss as assessed by the Surveyors and Loss Assessors as discussed above. We also find it a case for payment of due compensation to the complainant by O. P. 2 under Sec. 14 (1 ) (d) of the Act which may be in the form of interest @ 18% p. a. on the amount of Rs. 14,789, loss assessed by Surveyors and Loss Assessors w. e. f. 28. 1. 2001 (the date worked out on expiry of 3 months'' period after occurrence of loss, a period required in normal course for settling the claim in an effective manner) till 11. 1. 2002 while on the balance i. e. Rs. 2,492 (Rs. 14,789 minus Rs. 12,297) @ as above w. e. f. 12. 1. 2002 till realization, particularly view of authority in case of L. I. C. of India v. Ms. Bhupinder Kaur (minor) and Ors. , I (2001) CPJ 187=2000 (2) CLT 646 wherein Hon''ble the State Commission Punjab authoritatively laid down that interest is not granted within the contract between the insured and insurer but within the provisions of Section 14 (1) (d) of the Act on deficiency in rendering service being established for compensating the complainant and authority in case PUDA, Ludhiana v. Smt. Karnail Kaur, I (2000) CPJ 577=2000 (1) CLT 470, wherein Hon''ble the State Commission Punjab ruled that where no action is taken for refunding the amount there is deficiency in service and negligent act entitling the complainant to compensation which may be in the form of interet @ 18% P. A. Ordered accordingly.

Resultantly, complaint in hand is allowed against O. P. 2 only with costs quantified at Rs. 1,000 while dismissed against O. P. 1 without costs and O. P. 2 is directed to do as under: (i) to pay Rs. 2,492 the amount as deducted from amount of loss assessed, to the complainant; (ii) to pay compensation to the complainant in the form of interest @ 18% p. a. on the amount of Rs. 14,789 w. e. f. 28. 1. 2001 to 11. 1. 2002 while on the amount of Rs. 2,492 w. e. f. 12. 1. 2002 till realization. "

HENCE, this appeal by the complainant for enhancement. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the order passed by the learned District Forum.

THE fire incident as well as insurance has not been disputed before us. Learned Counsel for the appellant argued that appellant is entitled for total loss, which includes loss of wooden racks, chairs, tables, counter and other furnishing articles. We do not find merit in this contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant as on seeing the photocopy of cover note No. 588106, it is confirmed that it is written in the cover note that only stock all (Karyana) kinds of goods lying in the shop are covered under the policy and as per policy, appellant is entitled only for Karyana articles and in our view the learned District Forum has rightly concluded this aspect. In view of the above, we fully concur with the well based reasoning of the District Forum and finding no merit for enhancement. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed, however, without any order as to costs. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period because of heavy pendency and non-availability of the requisite Benches and infrastructure in the State Commission, for which the State Government has already been requested. Appeal dismissed.